Official Report 155KB pdf
The first item on our agenda is evidence on the Scottish Government's draft budget for 2010-11. As members will recall, the Minister for Housing and Communities first gave evidence to the committee on the draft budget on 22 September. However, at that time the Scottish Government's equality statement had not been published; therefore, the minister very kindly agreed to fit in an extra session on it, on which we now embark.
I will make a short statement, if that is okay. However, with your indulgence, I first welcome our friends from Nigeria who are in the public gallery. They are visiting the Parliament to see parliamentary practice in Scotland so that they can take any good ideas back to Nigeria.
On behalf of the committee, I, too, welcome the Nigerian visitors and everyone else who is in the public gallery.
It is to mainstream equality and to ensure that equality considerations permeate all governmental decision making and budget setting.
Right. That is helpful.
I do not agree with Professor Bell. I will give you a good example from my portfolio. The new energy assistance programme, which is the successor to the central heating and warm deal programmes, was developed as a result of widespread consultation particularly, but not solely, with the Scottish fuel poverty forum. A criticism of the old programmes was that they were not discerning enough in their target groups and that relatively wealthy people were receiving free central heating systems while other, less wealthy groups—in fact, people who were living in fuel poverty—were not being assisted at all by those programmes. As a result of the analysis and the recommendations that resulted from that analysis, we introduced the new energy assistance programme. Unlike the old programmes, it is targeted more at people who are in fuel poverty, including, for the first time, families with children under five, pregnant women and families with children under 16 who are disabled. That is a good example of our completely redesigning a programme to meet our equality objectives.
How do you respond generally to Professor Bell's comments? Is it reasonably fair to say that there could be more effort to link the events or initiatives that are listed in the statement clearly to precise budget commitments?
This is the first time that the equality statement, in this context, has been produced side by side with the budget. We would be the first to say that there is a great deal of room for further improvement in making clearer the linkages between our policies and our spending decisions.
An interesting and important part of the equality statement says:
Probably the best example is that £83.1 million-worth of priority 1 European social fund money, which is very much targeted at priority groups, has been brought forward. The priority groups that the £83.1 million is targeted at include long-term unemployed and inactive people; unemployed inactive lone parents and other carers; unemployed inactive people with mental health problems, long-term illness, disabilities or learning difficulties; unemployed inactive people from ethnic minority groups; and individuals experiencing persistent part-time seasonal employment.
You stated that spending plans are to show more clearly the links between evidence, policy, spending and equality outcomes. Can you provide a few examples of where policy and spend have led to positive equality outcomes?
When we are talking about outcomes, we are not talking about the draft budget for next year because, by definition, outcomes can come only from previous budgets. However, I will pick an example of a good thing that was done by the previous Administration—including your good self. Free personal care was a trailblazing policy that was introduced a number of years ago by the Labour-Liberal Administration, with support from my party and the Tories. There are clear signs that free personal care has had a positive impact on the quality of care for our older people.
It was kind of you to mention a policy from a previous era. Can you think of any policies in the past three years that have led to equality outcomes?
We have 73 different projects on the issue of violence against women. The issue has received all-party support in the Parliament. The evaluation work that we have done on the issue shows that the refuges that are being provided—I opened a new one in Glasgow a few months ago—are having an extremely important and effective impact on the protection of women against domestic abuse.
To follow up on that topic, action on domestic abuse is a key area for the Scottish Government, as it was for the previous Administration. It is also important under the gender equality duty. In the statement, could there have been clearer links—for example under the housing and regeneration budget—with priorities that are strategically relevant to the work on domestic abuse?
The issue of violence against women was covered in three policy areas in the equality statement. It was a substantial section under my portfolio—housing, regeneration and equalities—and there were sections in the education and justice areas. Violence against women is a good example of an issue that is not departmentalised. Although we, along with justice, tend to take the lead on it, the fact that it has appeared under three portfolio headings indicates the way in which we are trying to ensure that the need to tackle the problem permeates the Administration.
The moves forward on that are greatly appreciated throughout Scotland. However, I have a more specific question. The map of gaps research showed what it called a postcode lottery of service provision. Is there something specific in the budget to rectify that?
In terms of violence against women?
Yes, and in the provision of refuges.
One of the issues that the violence against women group is considering is how we universalise the standard of delivery. I accept entirely that we still have a way to go, particularly on the quality of refuge facilities, which is variable throughout Scotland. If we consider the contribution that is made by the affordable housing investment budget, for example towards funding for refuges, and the work that we are doing more generally with housing associations, local authorities and others, you are right to say that there are gaps. There is still too much variation between different parts of the country, particularly in rural areas. I am extremely concerned about the lack of adequate facilities for women who are the subject of domestic abuse and violence in many of our rural areas. I fully accept that.
In the budget equality statement, each budget portfolio lists various wide-ranging actions and events that are all meant to promote equality. For example, under the office of the First Minister, the statement talks about the national museums and the aim of improving accessibility with
We provided overall guidance on the kind of statement that we were looking for from each portfolio. However, I accept that we have a way to go in the provision and presentation of information.
I thank the minister for that fairly comprehensive reply, even though he ended up by agreeing that we still have a way to go.
First, it is important to understand that the role of EBAG is not to write the equality statement or to provide a direct input on substance and policy issues in the draft budget. The job of EBAG is to look at the processes by which we put together and link evidence, policy, budgets and outcomes. That is where EBAG's expertise comes in. At any one time, EBAG would not necessarily be aware of what we are doing in producing specific budget documents or equality statements. EBAG looks at processes.
The issues about last year's budget that were raised by this committee and by the Finance Committee were considered by EBAG in the course of the year. In our workshop in May, we had a wide-ranging discussion on how we could improve matters. One idea that was suggested was that an alternative statement could be published alongside the budget, given the need to bear in mind the constraints on the budget document that have previously been shared with the committee. The Government drew on that discussion—about the possibility of producing a budget equality statement—and it was taken forward internally with ministers and with finance officials. To that extent, EBAG informed how we went about matters. However, the detail of the equality statement and its construction and publication were not discussed or shared with EBAG in detail for the reasons that the minister has described. We have made it clear that we do not expect EBAG to produce our documents. EBAG provides expertise to advise us and guide us on how we take forward our responsibilities as Government. That is very much what EBAG has done in its work to date.
That is helpful, but I think that our point is that, while understanding the limitations on EBAG's involvement, we recognise the big contribution that EBAG can make in providing valid and informed comment. It might have been good to make EBAG aware of when the equality statement would be made available, given the group's interest in the matter.
I accept that. I am sorry if I did not give an indication of the value that is attached to the contribution that the group has made over the period. In fact, the equality statement would not have been produced if we had not had those on-going discussions with EBAG and been influenced by the work that has been done.
I am sure that that will be appreciated by the group.
I have some questions about equality impact assessments, on which we want further detail. The equality statement provides quite a list of examples of how the Government uses, or intends to use, EqIAs in its development of initiatives and policy areas. Can the minister provide a specific example of how the EqIA process informed policy development and the subsequent budgetary allocation? To use a topical example, was an impact assessment done on the swine flu strategy before the budget for it was allocated?
We have had two EqIAs on pandemic flu, one of which was done in co-operation with our friends down south in Whitehall, while the other was on the guidance in Scotland.
Obviously, that was a massive undertaking. As you were talking, it struck me that how men react to such campaigns might also be a big equality issue.
For the energy assistance package that I mentioned earlier, we are doing another EqIA because the whole point of the package is to reorientate resources so that they are targeted more effectively.
Thank you—that is clear.
Absolutely. There are two separate processes. We have the EqIA process, and from time to time there are separate evaluations of both the performance and impact of individual policies. I think I am correct to say that any terms of reference for such evaluations would include the impact on equality. I look to Alistair Brown to confirm that.
They certainly should do.
May I add something in answer to the question about existing or older policies? In the advice and guidance that we give policy makers, we ask them to think about policies that might have significant impacts on people. If they have not been the subject of an EqIA or are about to be reviewed or changed, we ask them to consider when would be the opportune time to undertake an EqIA. We suggest that an EqIA be undertaken when a long-standing policy comes up for review or circumstances change.
I should say that the process is not just internal: in every EqIA we consult key stakeholders. For example, on pandemic flu and the energy assistance package, we are consulting key stakeholders to ensure that we get things right.
I would like to delve a little bit deeper. I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing about the matter at our previous meeting and, in her written reply to the committee, she gave an example of an EqIA, but I was looking for proof of their effectiveness. Are there examples of EqIA processes that have highlighted that a policy would have a strongly negative impact on one equality group but a strongly positive impact on another? If so, how was the situation resolved? The example that the health secretary gave was that a range of maternity wear has been made available for NHS staff. I thought that that was quite a minor example; I presume that pregnant women must still wear uniform. Is there other evidence that EqIAs are effective?
The question was asked the last time I appeared at the committee, when I said that we know of no ready example of a case in which an EqIA identified an equality issue that was then ignored in a policy's development. We have double checked and cannot find such an example; to the best of our knowledge, there are no examples of that happening in any substantive policy issue. It should not happen, because the whole point is that the EqIA is part of the policy development process, whether it is a brand new policy or we are revisiting or reviewing an existing policy. If an EqIA identified equality issues that should be addressed but they were ignored, I do not see how the policy would be approved, because to ignore the EqIA would defeat its purpose.
Maybe I am not making myself clear. I would not expect anybody to ignore the result of an assessment, but I might expect people to change their mind about a policy because of an assessment. They might say, "This result was not expected until we did the assessment." That is a test of the worth of the assessment. If you assess all the policies and they all turn out to be fine, what is the point of doing EqIAs?
Last time I was here, I gave the example of the drugs strategy, the EqIA for which influenced aspects of that strategy. This morning, I mentioned the pandemic flu helpline: it is fair to say that the EqIA influenced the design of the helpline and changed views on particular aspects of the most effective way in which to deliver it. There are many examples in which EqIAs have positively changed people's thoughts about the delivery of services, because they have identified issues that needed to be addressed in the delivery of policies.
It would be helpful if you could furnish the committee with more examples of that.
Okay.
, We are looking specifically at how to balance conflicting interests.
That can be thrown up by an EqIA or by general policy development. In enterprise policy, the small business bonus scheme is probably a good example. It is difficult to evaluate its impact precisely, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the scheme has had a very positive impact on the small business community in Scotland. That is the upside. We could, however, argue that the downside is that we have less revenue coming in because of the scheme.
I suppose I was thinking more of, for example, some of the religious groups that may be opposed to some rights, or equality impact statements that have impacted on policy and changed a certain issue that may be important to a religious group—that kind of thing. Where do faith schools fit into the picture? Are there beliefs that might be challenged by rights that are given to groups?
As you know, our system of faith schools is not similar to that south of the border. To the best of my knowledge, we have a legal commitment in relation to the Roman Catholic Church, for example, dating from 1918. Obviously, that is something that every Government adheres to.
Okay. If you can have a further think about the issue, the committee would welcome that, because it goes to the heart of some of the issues that we have to deal with.
In February 2003, the previous Administration published "Making Progress: Equality Annual Report", which included an equality budget statement. Did you consider that when you developed your equality statement?
I have that report here.
There you go. Did it have any influence?
Obviously, we do look back. However, I remind the committee that the 2003 report was in a different context. It was an annual report that was meant to be more commentary than part of the policy-making process. It was a general report on progress on equality. Annex A dealt specifically with the Scottish budget equality statement, as it was then called. We looked at that when we were considering how to format our equality statement. Some aspects of it were helpful, but others were perhaps not so helpful. That report certainly was not done in anything like the detail that we have in the equality statement that we produced in September. However, it was a useful document, although it was never repeated.
On its never being repeated, will there be an equality statement next year? If so, what specific improvements would you make? You mentioned that some improvements are required.
Our intention is to have another equality statement next year, but we will make a final decision once we have seen the report from EBAG next summer. I make that caveat because we would like to tie in the statement more with the three-year comprehensive spending review. As members will know, there should have been a comprehensive spending review this year, which would have covered the next three years. There has not been a CSR this year, but I hope that there will be one next year, irrespective of who wins the Westminster elections. EBAG's remit for its report next summer is to consider applying the process beyond a year-to-year basis. We want to ensure that equality is mainstreamed as far as possible in decisions about our three-year comprehensive spending plan.
Would you consider using the present report as a baseline for future reports in order to track changes?
We will do so. As I highlighted at the committee's previous meeting, one of the problems is that we do not always have the necessary baseline data in some areas to measure progress. However, we are getting much more sophisticated in that respect. The level and quality of data that we now have in some areas, which have been developed over the past 10 years or so, are exceptional. For example, on the incidence and concentration of poverty in Scotland, the Scottish index of multiple deprivation is now extremely robust and helpful in trying to identify trends in relative poverty in Scotland. That is a very good example of how on-going and high-quality gathering, collating and analysing of information is directly informing policy and spend.
You commented earlier on some good practices of other European Union regional Governments. Did you make use of any such examples? Can you give me examples of your having used international practice in compiling the equality statement? If you did not do that, how might you hope to do so in the future?
Nuala Gormley, who is involved in this area, has told me that Andalucía is particularly far ahead in that respect. I ask Nuala to come in with more detail on how we have been looking at that.
I am principally involved with the four-nations group of analysts in the UK, which is looking at equalities data and reports in respect of all our commitments. We all genuinely seek to improve practice based on the evidence base, reporting and aiming to develop a credible narrative for progress on equalities. In that context, there is a useful opportunity for all the analysts in the four nations to pick up best practice. Andalucía is certainly one that we all look to with a lot of interest because of its particular approach and the attention that it has paid to the issues and data around its equality statements. Our group within the Scottish Government is starting to develop a Scottish equalities evidence and statistics plan that will run for three or four years, which will provide us with a good and cohesive plan that will serve us with better data for EqIAs to pick up best practice from elsewhere and work with initiatives such as the equalities measurement framework. A concerted and sustained improvement effort around our equalities data is therefore going on, which is genuinely picking up on best practice elsewhere.
Thank you. That was very helpful.
The minister touched on the importance of having the correct data on which to build policy and, indeed, budget spend. On page 9 of the equality statement, you cover the information base: you talk about the national social surveys, in which this committee has been interested over the years. How exactly would you use information, from a national social survey on attitudes in Scotland, to shape policy?
Yes. The most recent Scottish social attitudes survey showed that progress has been made on substantially reducing the negative attitude to the lesbian and gay community, which was previously not the case. Obviously, we want to look behind that to find out why, and to find out whether the policies that we have pursued have helped, and whether we can do more to help to change attitudes further and get a much more tolerant approach. That is an example of how we would look at the survey and the trend of attitudes, and assess where progress has been made or where the trend has gone backwards and there has been no progress. That would then inform us of areas where we need to do more work to find out what is behind the figures and whether we need to do more in policy development and/or spend. We would therefore use the surveys as a tool to inform policy and to identify areas in which we perhaps need to do more or do things differently because we are not achieving our strategic objectives.
Through the office of the chief researcher, a programme of collaboration between the ESRC and the Scottish Government has been in development for a number of years. On support for equalities policy on the communities side, we have developed a number of studentships and PhDs on issues of specifically Scottish interest. I suppose what that says is that we have been an enthusiastic user of an opportunity that presents good value for money for the Scottish Government. It is also part of a capacity-building effort to ensure that we have young academics coming through from universities who have a good policy perspective on the key policy issues for us.
Can you give us examples of those kinds of projects?
I am happy to supply you with more detail on not just some of but all the projects that we are involved in—that would not be a problem.
That would be excellent.
On the first question, the Scottish social attitudes survey is one of our main research instruments. We have, within that, a discrimination module, and a new one is about to be commissioned. We have also paid attention, across all the Scottish social surveys, to improving the demographic data that we pick up in order to try to improve, in our samples of the equalities groups, what we understand about them and the information on their views and attitudes. That is all part of our concerted effort to understand fully the data that we hold, and to assess where we need to use estimates and where we can rely on census data.
It becomes a slightly chicken-and-egg situation in that, when people feel that there is more tolerance of them as a group, they are more willing to volunteer data, which thereby improves—we hope—policy development.
The answer to Margaret Smith's last question is yes. We will consider what the committee has said and will consult the other relevant parliamentary committees.
No, I was looking past you, minister, to Yvonne Strachan.
You asked specifically about the four areas and where they came from. As you know, ministers had a responsibility to report progress on disability issues across the public sector and did so in December 2008. We produced six reports outlining that progress. In addition, we produced a report that outlined potential areas for co-ordination. Out of that work, which was informed by the work of the committee—there has been an on-going, collaborative exercise among all those who are interested in advancing disability equality—the four areas to emerge were, as the minister has said, independent living, employability, transitions and the tackling of poverty.
What will be the timetable? What will be your next couple of steps?
A stakeholder forum with which we are in regular discussion is looking specifically at independent living and is due to report by next summer or thereabouts. Is that correct?
Yes. That work will be on-going to March 2011, but we will be updated on it.
It is an iterative process, in a sense. It is not just a one-off; the stakeholder group is doing important, on-going work. The EHRC is involved in that along with the Scottish Government and the key stakeholders.
If that group proposed the development of a policy on independent living, how would that work? Would it immediately go further up the pecking order as something for you to look at?
In a sense, we have invited that. We are keen to do more to promote independent living, and the stakeholder group is considering ways in which we can do that. As and when the group makes recommendations to us, we will review the evidence and will consider those recommendations as part of the policy-making process. Undoubtedly, at least one EqIA will be undertaken as a result of the recommendations. If there is more than one substantive recommendation, more than one EqIA may be undertaken. We will then finalise the policy and decide how much spend is required to implement it and where it fits into our wider priorities. From day 1, we must be clear about the outcomes that we are trying to achieve from the policy and the spend.
That completes our questioning. Is there anything the minister or any of the other panellists would like to say in closing?
We look forward to the committee's report on the equality statement and we will take seriously any recommendations that you make for its improvement. We recognise that it is early days in the development of an equality statement. We are ahead of the other three nations in the UK, but we can learn from our colleagues in other parts of Europe: we will do so and we will take seriously any views or recommendations that come from the committee.
Thank you. The equality statement is key to ensuring that the crucial links exist between policy spending and equality outcomes. I hope that today's meeting will help to improve that process for the future, as well as being an acknowledgement of what has taken place in the equality statement. The committee widely welcomes the statement and notes that such a statement has not previously been published. We are also grateful to the minister and his officials for fitting in an evidence session today.
Meeting continued in private until 12:48.
Previous
Interests